Allowed

Jayachandran P.R v. Kondazhy Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC8 Mar 2023WP(C)/3356/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought building permit for residential construction on land purchased in 2020. Court held requirement for land development permit unjustified when no development is intended and ordered Panchayath to issue building permit within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent Panchayath to consider the building permit application without insisting on land development permit and to issue the permit within one month if otherwise in order.

Jayachandran P.R Vs Kondazhy Grama Panchayath — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 3356 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

JAYACHANDRAN P.R
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.RAGHAVAN, PRACHINGAYIL HOUSE, KONDAZHY POST,
THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 679106
BY ADVS.
R.SREEHARI
HAMZA A.V.
VIGNESH S.

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1KONDAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
KONDAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KONDAZHY POST,
THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, PIN – 679106.

¶9

2THE SECRETARY
KONDAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KONDAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
OFFICE, KONDAZHY POST, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT., PIN – 679106.

¶10

3THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
KONDAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KONDAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
OFFICE, KONDAZHY POST, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT., PIN – 679106.

¶11

BY ADV Jayaram P

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 3356 OF 2023 2

¶14

VIJU ABRAHAM, J

¶15

WP(C) No.3356 of 2023

¶16

Dated this the 8th day of March 2023

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The petitioner is the absolute owner and is in possession and enjoyment of 4.05 Ares (0.0405 Hectares) of land in Sy No.100/P-7 of Kondazhy Village, Thalappilly Taluk, Thrissur District by virtue of a Registered Sale Deed No.1291/2020 of SRO Pazhayannur dated 18.11.2020.

¶19

Petitioner had submitted an application for building permit along with necessary plans before the first respondent for the purpose of constructing a residential building and by Ext.P5 communication was issued to the petitioner intending that the application can be processed only on production of permission granted for land development. Petitioner submitted that he purchased small portion of the land as per Ext.P1 deed. Petitioner do not intent to undertake any land development in the property and he only wants to construct a residential building in the said property. Therefore the insistence for producing documents to prove that the permission has been granted for land development is absolutely without any basis. The issues raised by

¶20

WP(C) NO. 3356 OF 2023 3

¶21

the petitioner is covered in his favour in Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 judgments passed by this court.

¶22

Respondents Panchayath has filed a counter affidavit– mainly contending that on physical verification and inspection it was found that the land development activities has taken place and land sub-division was carried out at the property and this was without getting any permission from the respondent.

¶23

In the light of declaration of law by Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 judgments, I am of the opinion that the insistence of production of land development permit by the petitioner for consideration of his application for building permit is without any basis. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondent -Panchayath to consider the building permit application submitted by the petitioner without insisting for the land development permit as sought for in Ext.P5 and to issue a building permit to the petitioner within a period of one month from today, if the application is otherwise in order.

¶24

The writ petition is allowed as above.

sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE

R.AV

WP(C) NO. 3356 OF 2023 4

¶29

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3356/2023

¶30

`PETITIO` `Exhibit`	`NER EXHIBITS` `P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED` `NO.1291/2020 OF SRO PAZHAYANNUR DATED` `18/11/2020 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED` `BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER KONDAZHY IN FAVOUR` `OF THE PETITIONER DATED 24/08/2022 FOR THE` `PERIOD 2022-2023.`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE` `ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER KONDAZHY IN` `FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER WITH NO.69099385` `DATED 25/09/2022.`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING` `PERMIT WITH PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON` `11/10/2022, THROUGH E-FILING MODE WITH` `REGISTRATION NO.1813164.`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15/11/2022` `WITH NO.400684/BPRL01/GPO/2022/3085/(1) ,` `ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE` `HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED IN 2018 (3)` `KLT 1 [NAFEESA AND ANOTHER -VS- CHAVAKKAD` `MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS].`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE` `HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPORTED IN 2022 (2)` `KLT 653 [PANJAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH AND` `ANOTHER -VS- ANEESH P.]`

Jayachandran P.R v. Kondazhy Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayachandran P.R v. Kondazhy Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aryan.P. Vs State of Kerala

Suprakasan Kolath, Vs State of Kerala

Saji Chacko Vs Registrar of Births and Deaths

Jyothilekshmi, Vs Thrippunithura Muncipality

S. Saseendran Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal @ Puttu, Vs State of Kerala